1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 28, 2016, 10:47:44 PM »

By posting it. He say's "my sixth graders"
Guess what, everybody on this forum has done sixth grade. We all learnt from Donald and we all passed, even Intikam.
But look Intikam had a different thought and Donald is back to teach him again.
Good on you Donald, you make it all good again.

Thanks.  And Intikam might not have had this in Turkey. Although he probably did.   

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 25, 2016, 09:59:38 PM »

Yup. Totally ignored my post that answered all four of his points. What a surprise.   

I didn't read any of your posts because you are trolling the forum like other your colleagues

>> How are the NASA trolls hiding the truth for support themselves ? https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66578.0

I will post in a debate forum then not actually read anything anyone says.   Not surprising. Science is difficult. There is a reason scientists tend to be highly intelligent people. No worries, good to know your limitations. Enjoy your magic book.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 25, 2016, 07:04:46 PM »

TigerWidow,  thanks for the kind words. I find people like him more humorous than anything. I used to comment here about two years back, before the great schism. Now we have theflatearthsociety.org and tfes.org.  I have used this site for my more advanced kids I tutor about critical thinking and pseudoscience.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 24, 2016, 10:07:12 PM »

Yup. Totally ignored my post that answered all four of his points. What a surprise.   

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 22, 2016, 08:44:26 PM »

It can indeed rain without clouds as I described in my well thought out and written post. Which was of course ignored by the religious zealot. I explained the same ideas my middle school students learned several weeks back. About rain, humidity and clouds. Sad really. But heh, I know I am not going to change his mind. Just hoping to insure he does not influence people passing through.

Good day.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Globe Earth Debunk: Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:41:55 PM »

My sixth graders were able to grasp all these ideas pretty easily. Some basic facts first.

Evaporation is not the same boiling. Evaporation is controlled by both temperature and pressure. Essentially the air has some space for the water molecules and those that gain enough energy leave the water’s surface and enter the air. Some actually collide with the various gas molecules in the air and bounce back into the water, however most will remain in the air.

Condensation is controlled almost entirely by temperature and to a much lesser extent pressure.

Relative humidity is the amount of gaseous water in the air relative to the amount the atmosphere can hold at that temperature and pressure.

Gaseous water is invisible whilst liquid water is visible.

I think that is all we need. Now to explain this all for you. I will hit it point by point then explicate what I think needs it afterwards.

1- Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?


Yes, a great deal of the gaseous water in the atmosphere does come from evaporation over the oceans. Not all by any means, but a large majority does. I would wager on the average day over time the majority of cloud cover is over the oceans. The world is large, the oceans cover 70% of it. Just because you do not see clouds over your local ocean view does not equate to, “there are no clouds over the oceans.”

As mentioned above gaseous water is invisible. So although you might not directly observe it there may be a great deal of moisture in the air. I used to live at the ocean in NJ. It could be 98% humidity at the beach and not a cloud in the sky. Because it was all still in gaseous form.

Clouds form from pockets of lower pressure or temperature. Small dust particles in the air are seeds for liquid water to condense onto and to ultimately become clouds. We can see clouds because they are made up of liquid water, not gaseous water. How are they able to remain aloft? Buoyancy.  They are floating in the air. Eventually parts of the cloud do become too heavy to float and fall to the ground as rain drops.

2- Sometimes a cloudy day it's not raining and sometimes it's raining with a few clouds on a sunny day. These cases show us the clouds aren't the exact cause for occuring the rain.

Clouds are often the main source of rain. Clouds can remain aloft as long as the drops of water in them, and often small ice particles, stay small enough. So not all clouds will produce rain. As temperature drops or pressure, or both, more gaseous water condenses out of the air to become liquid water, the drops grow in size and finally fall. Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky. Usually not much but I have experienced this a few times. Conversely the sky can be covered in thick dark clouds but have no rain. 

3- We must see the clouds on the oceans on every day in summer because it such as boiling pans. But we don't ! And sunny days the air in the ocean usually open like the lands.

I think you mean on hot days we should see a great deal of clouds over the oceans. See above. Local conditions, relative humidity etc.

4- We must see the clouds usually moving from oceans and seas to lands but this situation does not usually occur. Clous move random.

Clouds do not move completely randomly.  There are jet streams, pressure differentials and other factors that steer them.


Temperature determines cloud coverage much more than pressure. I could show you a gif that is over a ten year period and shows cloud coverage and humidity over the northern and southern hemispheres. You would see that in the winter there is much less cloud coverage and humidity, while during summer much more. But I do not know how to just place a gif in my response and I am not making an imugr account to do so.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is Flat just as the hello-centrists say the universe is Flat

« on: April 14, 2016, 07:13:07 PM »

MrDebunk, if you read my earlier post in this thread you will see exactly what they mean by flat. But here it is again.

Let's first think about this in two dimensions and then we can move to three. We will use a triangle as our way to explain this idea. On a flat plane, normal Euclidean space, the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. Simple enough, we all learned this in geometry in high school. Now imagine a triangle drawn on a large ball. The three angles will add up to more than 180 degrees, this is called positive curvature. Now draw a triangle on a horse saddle or Pringles potato chip. The three angles will be less than 180 degrees in total and this is called negative curvature.

Now we simply add the third dimension and do this again. Use three objects in space that are sufficiently far apart, add up the angles between them and you have your total angel measurement. If it is 180 degrees the universe is flat, less than 180 degrees, negative curvature, more than 180 degrees, positive curvature. Thus far it seems the universe is flat, or nearly so.

Sir Richard and İntikam, you both seem to be confused as to what the scientists meant in the article when they said the universe is flat, or very nearly so. I have explained what flat means in three dimensional space. Neither of you have responded to this clarification. Please do so. Thank you.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is Flat just as the hello-centrists say the universe is Flat

« on: April 13, 2016, 04:56:45 AM »

Was that directed at me Intkicam?  You seem to have completely ignored what I said. This is what physicists mean when they say the universe is flat.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth is Flat just as the hello-centrists say the universe is Flat

« on: April 12, 2016, 09:40:04 PM »

As someone with a physics degree and an interest in cosmology allow me to explain what is meant by the universe is flat.

Let's first think about this in two dimensions and then we can move to three. We will use a triangle as our way to explain this idea. On a flat plane, normal Euclidean space, the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. Simple enough, we all learned this in geometry in high school. Now imagine a triangle drawn on a large ball. The three angles will add up top more than 180 degrees, this is called positive curvature. Now draw a triangle on a horse saddle or Pringles potato chip. The three angles will be less than 180 degrees in total and this is called negative curvature.

Now we simply add the third dimension and do this again. Use three objects in space that are sufficiently far apart, add up the angles between them and you have your total angel measurement. If it is 180 degrees the universe is flat, less than 180 degrees, negative curvature, more than 180 degrees, positive curvature. Thus far it seems the universe is flat, or nearly so.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Latest Scientific Discovery in the field of FE ?

« on: March 22, 2016, 01:01:10 AM »

It has been months since I have stopped by the site. I will say that the answer to your query is nothing. Not one thing.

I do however want a T-shirt.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unsure of flat or not but here's something interesting

« on: October 19, 2015, 11:11:03 PM »

Generally speaking you cannot see farther than 300 miles. The air is refracting the light. Depending on temperature, currents etc.  you might be able to see 350 miles, you might see fewer than 200 miles.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 12, 2015, 05:13:54 PM »

The Engineer,

Again ignoring my questions.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?

« on: October 12, 2015, 07:08:56 AM »

So your grammar was incorrect, as I stated. Words matter, do try to use language properly. We are teachers, the history teacher, the literature teacher, and me the science teacher enjoyed it. Thanks for the laughs.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 12, 2015, 01:37:49 AM »

Dark Energy Field Theory (DEFT).  Dark Energy is the placeholder name I've given to the mechanism that is causing the FE to accelerate.  As this Dark Energy flows around the Earth, it creates a type of 'bow shock' for the top surface of the earth.  There is a boundary layer interaction between the DE and the magnetic field that produces a force normal to the interaction zone of the boundary layer.  This prevents the atmosphere from escaping and also keeps the DE from interacting with things on the top surface of the FE.

Do you accept F=ma?

Of course.

What is everything accelerating relative to, what is the frame of reference?

The universe.  Or drop your wrench.  Relative to that.

Returning to Jupiter, do you accept Jupiter is a relatively spherical (oblong spheriod) or is it a disk?

I believe it to be spherical.

Since according to you there is no gravity...

According to me, Einstein, most scientists.

what causes Jupiter's moons to orbit it?

Gravitation.

Nice of you to use the name actual cosmologists use for what is accelerating the expansion of the universe as your name. So in your 'model' is the universe expanding? As the redshift of most galaxies suggests in standard big bang cosmology?

So it would seem there should be this 'bow shock' around all the other celestial bodies as well, agreed? What should we be seeing then when we look at the other planets and the sun?

Einstein and most other physicists do not believe there is no gravity, we accept that is not a Newtonian force, it is the curvature of space-time caused by energy-mass. You say there is no gravity and then state that what causes Jupiter's moons to orbit is gravity. I am going to assume you were saying gravity is not a force, but GR is what causes the orbits. If I am incorrect do tell me so. Continuing on then, you accept mass exists and that Jupiter's moons orbit because of GR, which means Jupiter has mass, as do its moons. Jupiter's mass tells space-time how to curve, this curvature tells the moons how to move about Jupiter (yes they also curve space-time but a much smaller extent).

Now does the Earth have mass? Because whichever answer you give has consequences. If it does then by your acceptance of GR causing the moons of Jupiter to orbit it, then we should be able to measure this GR effect. If the Earth does not have mass that opens up a serious can of worms. Which is it?

Finally the Earth and everything else is accelerating relative to the Universe? What do you mean by this? This make no sense to me, please explain. If we have been accelerating at 9.91 m/s^2 for billions of years, we are so close to C I do not want to type all those 9's. That also means whatever we have been accelerating relative to is travelling at that close to C relative to our reference frame. So what is it? Again this will have consequences which should be quite easy to see.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 11, 2015, 09:40:40 PM »

The FE has to block the DE/UA from interacting with the objects on the surface of the FE.  That is why when you drop your wrench, it 'falls' from your frame of reference. 

And I said gravity is not a force.  Which it isn't.

You kinda answered one of my questions. How is an acceleration blocked, do you have some mechanism? If the wrench is dropped from my hand it is NOT on the surface, is is above it. Is this a cylinder over the Earth of blocked acceleration? The sun and moon according to your theory must then be accelerated at the same rate as the Earth yet anything over the Earth is not accelerated.

You ignored these.

Do you accept F=ma? You said mass does exist, is this the correct relation for force? (I did not ask if Gravity is a force, you obviously do not, I want to know if you accept this relationship for what is a force.)

What is everything accelerating relative to, what is the frame of reference?

Returning to Jupiter, do you accept Jupiter is a relatively spherical (oblong spheriod) or is it a disk? Since according to you there is no gravity what causes Jupiter's moons to orbit it?

Please answer these.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 11, 2015, 09:32:14 PM »

By the way, you said that gravity has not been observed. I told you about the Cavendish experiment. You didn't answer. The Cavendish experiment examines the gravitational attraction between 4 balls on a tension balance, as expected by the theory. So...

You roundies love to mention the Cavendish experiment, yet you seem to be at a loss about the Tamarack Mine Experiments.  Perhaps you have a comment on this?

Has it been repeated recently?

This experiment, with more updated equipment is regularly performed by university students.
Here is one I found.
http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Chinchilla_web_article.pdf     

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the FE explain tide?

« on: October 11, 2015, 09:23:58 PM »

There is a constant but variable pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the earth and all the waters.

Thank you, my colleagues wanted to know what made me laugh out loud. Either it is constant, that is unchanging, or variable, that is always changing, pressure. These terms are incompatible.  Either you are terribly confused about what these terms mean, or your grammar was in serious error and you meant a constantly variable pressure. Which is it?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 11, 2015, 09:08:21 PM »

TheEngineer,   I asked you some questions about your ideas. You have not replied. I am here to engage in a conversation. I have answered your replies. I cannot engage with you if I do not have an understanding of your theories. I am a bit confused and I want to insure I am discussing what you believe, not what I think you do.

Is it your contention that the Earth is a flat disk and is constantly accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2? From your first post in this thread:
“FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.
Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.“

Yes, the FE is constantly accelerating at 9.81m/s^2.

If so what about all other objects in the solar system? The implication from this consequence is that all other objects in the solar system not in contact with the Earth should not be. Are they also being accelerated with the same magnitude? The moon, sun, Jupiter, etc.

Everything else in the visible universe would also have to be accelerating in the same direction to maintain position relative to us.

Does mass exist?

Of course.

You have a paradox then.
“FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.
Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.“   
While you also state
"Everything else in the visible universe would also have to be accelerating in the same direction to maintain position relative to us."

Either everything is accelerating relative to the Earth, with the same acceleration, or not. If so then when I let go of the wrench why does it fall? If your answer is that not all things are accelerating in the same direction as the Earth, what determines what is and is not accelerating relative to the Earth? And relative to what is everything accelerating, what is the reference frame?
Related; do you accept F=ma? You said mass does exist, is this the correct relation for force?

Returning to Jupiter, do you accept Jupiter is a relatively spherical (oblong spheriod) or is it a disk? Since according to you there is no gravity what causes Jupiter's moons to orbit it?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 11, 2015, 06:03:50 PM »

TheEngineer,   I asked you some questions about your ideas. You have not replied. I am here to engage in a conversation. I have answered your replies. I cannot engage with you if I do not have an understanding of your theories. I am a bit confused and I want to insure I am discussing what you believe, not what I think you do.

Thank you.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 11, 2015, 05:44:27 AM »

I agree with you TheEngineer, that GR and Newton's gravity (NG) are essentially incompatible. It does stand that by making assumptions and making some quantities zero you get NG. For massive objects you certainly need GR. For building a house NG will suffice. The global positioning satellites must take both SR and GR into account.

It seems you have a good grasp of SR and GR, so please do answer some questions as I am confused as to what you do believe regarding these theories and Flat Earth.

Is it your contention that the Earth is a flat disk and is constantly accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2? From your first post in this thread:
“FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.
Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.“
If so what about all other objects in the solar system? The implication from this consequence is that all other objects in the solar system not in contact with the Earth should not be. Are they also being accelerated with the same magnitude? The moon, sun, Jupiter, etc.
Does mass exist?

Thank you!

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 10, 2015, 04:18:01 AM »

From someone who knows GR better than I do. I have only had an undergraduate course in the topic, not the graduate levle course yet.

Often people get confused by the additional complication that Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity are often discussed in different mathematical formalisms. This can tend to obscure the physical differences. If you are game for the mathematics then Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (check it out of a library or get it second hand unless you are really serious about this business) has a wonderful chapter which puts both theories side by side in the same language (differential geometry). The key difference is that Newtonian gravity has a privileged separation of spacetime into space and time, whereas Einsteinian gravity just has spacetime.

Edit: to be absolutely clear, Newtonian gravity can be written as spacetime curvature! This is counter to the common statements about the novel thing in GR. The key difference is that Newtonian gravity has extra absolute structures that GR does not have: absolute time and space, a preferred separation of spacetime into time and spatial parts, absolute simultaneity, and a curved connection that is not the special one derived from a spacetime metric (Christoffel).

In mathematical form:

R00=4πρ;all others vanish,Rμν−12gμνR=8πGTμν, Newtonian Einsteinian
with a few other relations I've not written (see MTW chapter 12 for details).

A consequence of the formalism is that the Newtonian equation is a constraint equation - it does not describe a propagating degree of freedom. No gravitational waves, gravitons etc. No speed of light limit for gravity. All matter has an instantaneous gravitational effect on all other matter. This is different in GR since the field equation is a wave equation which describes the propagation of gravitational disturbances from one point to another at the speed of light.

What GR has that Newton does not is a spacetime metric of Lorentzian signature. This metric has a privileged role in that all other structures (connections, curvatures, etc.) are derived from it. There is essentially nothing else to Einstein gravity. That is why it is so elegant in the geometrical formalism. This metric actually comes from special relativity. But the metric was a fixed structure in SR, almost similar to the absolute time and space of Newton (don't tell anyone I said this). The new thing in general relativity is that Einstein lets the metric "flap around" so to speak - to change from place to place and time to time in response to what matter is doing.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: October 10, 2015, 01:28:14 AM »

Wading in a bit late.

A few things. One Newtonian gravity, that is Newton's equation can be derived from Einstein's General Relativity. For day to day stuff and even launching spacecraft and directing them to Pluto Newton's equation works just fine. For high mass objects; Neutron stars, black holes, galaxies, you need GR.  Also for the orbit of Mercury, the precession of the orbit could not be explained by Newton's gravity. GR solves it quite well. It also predicted gravitational lensing, which has been confirmed.

As far as what in GR bends space-time, the energy-mass metric does. That is to say, the amount of energy-mass present tells space time how to curve. The curvature of space-time tells energy-mass how to move. If you would like to see the math feel free, it is painful. {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity}   It is non-linear, therefore terribly difficult to solve exactly. In fact there are not many exact solutions, mostly computer approximations. The first thing you try to do when solving a GR problem is try and transform it into an Special Relativity one. SR is linear and can be solved relatively easily.

I saw TheEngineer mention photons as the messenger particles for E&M, which is correct. Gravity, in particle physics should have the graviton as its messenger particle. The Higgs Boson, which was recently discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, is what gives all particle that have mass their mass, by interacting with the Higgs field.

As far as dark energy, do not bogart the ideas of others. Dark energy comes from the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is the name for whatever is causing this, which means that the cosmological constant in Einstein's GR equation is not one, and might not even be a constant.

23

Technical Support / Re: Ok at work banned at home

« on: June 23, 2015, 12:38:15 AM »

I will try to get that for you. Appreciated.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time zones show round earth theory doesn't work

« on: June 18, 2015, 08:40:55 PM »

I currently live in Shanghai. I visited my sister in Los Angeles back in January. Going to LA I lose a day. Departed on Monday and after the flight land Tuesday. Heading back I left late Friday and arrived in SH early Friday, essentially gaining a day. You can read all about how this works all over the web. So either you are unwilling to put in the work or your intelligence is not up to understanding. And from what I have seen from your postings and 'replies' I am guessing the latter.

25

Technical Support / Ok at work banned at home

« on: June 18, 2015, 06:01:52 PM »

I am able to access the forums while at work. Old Windows XP system. At home using Google Chrome or Explorer and Windows 7 when I log onto the site I am given a banned message. Please resolve as I have summers off and will be unable to access from home for two months.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble

« on: June 18, 2015, 02:06:13 AM »

As expected, comment ignored. Theory used incorrectly again and the person who began the thread abandons it.

Your comment was ignored because it made no worthwhile point.

Indeed.  A demonstration that shows the expansion of the universe, the balloon represents the space itself expanding, the dots the galaxies being carried away by this expansion. You can lead a horse to water, you can force his head under the water, and close his nostrils, but you cannot force him to drink if he truly does not wish to. Just as you cannot change the mind of a true believer with evidence. in

Richard Dawkins often uses the example of Kurt Wise, a young earth creationist who also holds a PhD from Harvard in geology. This is what RD had to say about Wise.

Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto “Christ Above All”) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don’t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one “day” in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core “young earth creationists” who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise—flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education—is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were “inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.” Unusually among the motley denizens of the “big tent” of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

See what I mean about honest? Understandably enough, creationists who aspire to be taken seriously as scientists don’t go out of their way to admit that Scripture—a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders—trumps evidence. The great evolutionist John Maynard Smith, who once publicly wiped the floor with Duane P. Gish (up until then a highly regarded creationist debater), did it by going on the offensive right from the outset and challenging him directly: “Do you seriously mean to tell me you believe that all life was created within one week?”

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in 1984 struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

Can you imagine believing that and at the same time accepting a salary, month after month, to teach science? Even at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? I’m not sure that I could live with myself. And I think I would curse my God for leading me to such a pass.

I am sure Itchy, like most Flat Earthers, Geocentrics and others who take patently untenable views, is of the same ilk. He has belief and faith, do not confuse the issue with evidence.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinite Earth - don't believe me, believe Edwin Hubble

« on: June 15, 2015, 06:49:27 PM »

As expected, comment ignored. Theory used incorrectly again and the person who began the thread abandons it.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is wrong in this Picture ?

« on: June 15, 2015, 01:20:38 AM »

Experience trumps knowledge and theory.

What do you think informs knowledge and theory? Experience, observations, experiments. Good grief.

Glad my physics degree is a waste of time and everything I learned is lies. Good to know the real genius is here on TFES.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flaws in gravity (as acceleration) pertaining to a flat planet:

« on: June 15, 2015, 01:11:19 AM »

Exactly right about the scattering. Round earth or flat, air limits how far you can see.

According to Special Relativity you can accelerate forever at 9.8m/s.s  and you will never reach C, the speed of light. It is a consequence of the Theory. Wiki has a good page about SR.

As much as I hate to defend Flat Earth folks, this is not the fatal flaw of a flat Earth accelerating up. Pretty much everything else is. 

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round-Earthers on FES that are Anti-Conspiratorial ( Shills )

« on: June 15, 2015, 01:06:29 AM »

We also have evidence, lots of it. So we have more to say.

Hmm am I a shill? I do not get paid to post here, but I do get paid to teach science. I am also on a break from my PhD studies wherein I was paid to study physics. Shill?

Iwitness I am terribly open minded. Much more than you are. When I was studying philosophy I often argued against what I actually accepted to be correct. It has many benefits. You see the weaknesses in your argument, the strengths and weaknesses in the opposing view/s and allows you to see why people hold those views. I can also discern when evidence has become overwhelming. Working scientists have to be open minded, many of our ideas and hypotheses turn out to be wrong. It is how science works. So we must be open minded. We follow the evidence.

Now, you start bringing me some incontrovertibly evidence the world is flat and there is a conspiracy and I will examine it critically and with an open mind. But you will not. Because you have none.